Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From the fluff I know that it can repel tank shells, and even repel plasma to some degree.
And I know that 2 kind of weapons can penetrate it on first hit: power weapons and Necron weaponry.
I am also interested in level of protection against many other things: from common weapons like Lasgun, across the vacuum of space to the radiation level that could even cockroach.
ANd what different characteristics have SoB and GK armor when compared to standard SM armor.
And can power armor have shielding systems?

Brother Coa wrote:ANd what different characteristics have SoB and GK armor when compared to standard SM armor.

For the SoB, the 3E Codex goes into some detail regarding the differences to Astartes armour. They are based on the same systems and both offer a similar armoured protection, but the Sororitas armour lacks many gadgets contained in the slightly bulkier Marine version. Examples of omitted or downscaled systems include the waste recycler (missing completely), advanced life support (basic) and strength enhancement (weaker), as well as obviously a lack of a link between armour and Black Carapace, which the Sisters do not have.
In short, the Sororitas variant focuses on maximum basic protection for short term engagements, whereas the Marine armour also includes an array of additional tools that greatly enhance their adaptability in the field.

Brother Coa wrote:And can power armor have shielding systems?

What kind of shielding? Radiation, atmospheric, or rather stuff like refractor fields etc?

The former is a given, the latter should be possible but certainly isn't the norm. They can be combined, though (Marines and Sisters can wear a Rosarius in power armour), so I suppose a particularly wealthy Rogue Trader or Inquisitor could have a suit custom-made for him that would include such equipment.

Space marine armor can withstand the vacuum of space for a short period of time before the joints in the armor freeze and begin to crack, so the mount of time depends on how much the person inside moves around.

If the HH novels are to be believed, bolter rounds go through power armor like it's clothing.

From what I gather (warning: initiating deviation away from fluff and into my own conjecture) power armor is primarily comprised of two types of armor:

ceramic composite plates, probably very similar to modern tank armor but way more advanced

kevlar style flexible joints

I imagine the larger plates would provide very good protection against most kinetic and some energy weapons. As a marine still gets an armor save against high caliber, high velocity weapons such as autocannons, the large plates are probably nearly on par with modern main battle tank armor.

The pauldrons are sometimes described as reactive armor in fluff descriptions, but I think this is an example of authors/illustrators using random terminology to science-up their work. Otherwise marines would be replacing their pauldrons whenever the reactive armor exploded outward to defeat an energy weapon, which doesn't actually appear to be the case. So the pauldrons are probably also just very thick and highly advanced ceramic composite armor, with different layers to defeat different weapon types.

But wait, if a marine's armor plate is near-infallible, why do they still fail their saves 1/3 of the time? First off tabletop 40k is pretty simplified - play Inquisitor to see how tough power armor really is. Second, most failed armor saves are probably hits against the flexible joints or thinner pieces of plate. Small arms like autoguns and lasguns, or hand to hand combat attacks are probably unable to penetrate nearly any of the armor plate, but instead go through the kevlar-esque joints, the eyepieces, the thin armor of the gauntlets or forearms, or maybe the helmet as it can't be very thick.

As for boltguns, descriptions of the effectiveness of bolter rounds against power armor is all over the place in the fluff. Sometimes the rounds clatter off harmlessly, and sometimes they go clean through someone's chest plate.

To start, bolter rounds are described as high caliber, armor piercing, and high explosive. However, they would have relatively low velocity, especially right after leaving the barrel as it takes time for the rocket motor to accelerate the round. As a result, armor penetration wouldn't be that great at close range, and would probably be something like a .50 cal at max effective range - not enough to go through a few inches of what is essentially tank armor. The amount of high explosive you can fit into a 0.75 caliber round is also not impressive. It isn't designed as a shaped charge (except maybe some special-issue type rounds), so it isn't helping armor penetration. The HE is really there to explode inside a soft target, where a very small amount of explosives can cause massive trauma.

What I'm getting at is, fluff descriptions where bolter rounds go cleanly through the chest plate of a marine make no sense - the round simply couldn't and shouldn't have the necessary penetrating power. Other fluff has sustained bolter fire taking chunks out of the armor and potentially cracking the plates, which seems reasonable. So sustained bolter higher caliber weapons fire could chip away at and/or crack even the larger plates, which would eventually weaken the plate until a round could go through. I'd say you could take a limited number of rounds to the same spot, probably a near-infinite number for an autogun to the chest, much fewer for a bolter or heavy bolter, and maybe only a few for something like an autocannon. This doesn't even get into the potential for an incredibly hard ceramic plate to shatter some solid projectiles, or the effect that the curved shape of the armor plate and the incidence angle of the round would have on penetration, but it should give an idea of the capabilities of power armor plate versus kinetic penetrators.

Krak missile rounds, melta and plasma weapons - all these are energy type weapons, and behave quite differently. For a shaped charge round like a krak missile, the marine's plate armor won't help much. A big tank like a Leman Russ probably has some advanced type of spaced armor that can defeat shaped charges easily, but a suit of power armor is cumbersome enough without a second spaced armor layer. Marines or Battle Sisters would be relying on the ability of their composite plate armor to absorb or dissipate the energy from any shaped charge or other energy weapon, which would be limited. You might dissipate the energy from a lasgun or multilaser easily enough, but weapons specifically intended to melt straight through tank armor are going to slag you.

Withstanding vacuum shouldn't be a problem. Modern-day space suits don't freeze and crack in vacuum, and Astartes power armor wouldn't either. It's specifically designed for fighting in space. It's sealed, climate controlled, can probably scrub CO2 to provide breathable air for many hours, has mag-lock boots to allow walking on metal surfaces in zero-g. I would even imagine any suit of armor designed for space combat would be "self-sealing" in the manner of self-sealing fuel tanks in fighter aircraft and the like, so there's probably a secondary layer under the armor that can expand to seal off small punctures. While we're at it, I would include cuffs at different points along the limbs that could constrict if a loss of pressure was detected in that limb (potentially costing the marine his arm by cutting off blood flow, but saving his life by maintaining suit pressure).

Whew, sorry to digress, I'm quite bored at work.

Bolter rounds are shown to leave a case though implying that there is an initial charge to them. So rather than gyrojets they'd have significant force upon leaving the barrel the jet just maintaining that velocity over a greater distance to make up for the dense core. But the background on boltguns is very much all over the place.

I agree on everything else though.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:However, they would have relatively low velocity, especially right after leaving the barrel as it takes time for the rocket motor to accelerate the round.

Just to throw in a solution: As far as I've read, bolt weapons aren't true gyrojets but rather "hybrids" somewhere between gyrojet rocket rifles, RPGs and full-auto shotguns - in short, their ammunition is fired like a conventional bullet, but as soon as the projectile has left the barrel, the rocket motor kicks in to maintain trajectory and accelerate further. This way, a bolt weapon would retain its usefulness even in close combat (where Marines often fight!) and you suddenly have a reason for all those empty shells being ejected on various images.

As far as their efficiency goes, I'm not sure if there is really such a great variance throughout studio material or if it is merely limited to licensed products like BL novels, which are but "alternative versions of the respective world" (George Mann) - and deviate from each other or even GW canon on many more occasions. I'd simply go with what the Codices and the TT rulebooks hint at (which seems to be something in-between the two extremes you mentioned, so should work nicely) and avoid 3rd party shenanigans aka "creative license" here.

Agreed about the points you raised about the armour, though (including your 2nd explanation for failed saving throws) - nice write-up!

Bolter rounds are shown to leave a case though implying that there is an initial charge to them. So rather than gyrojets they'd have significant force upon leaving the barrel the jet just maintaining that velocity over a greater distance to make up for the dense core. But the background on boltguns is very much all over the place.

You're right, the background is all over the place. Having a case isn't inconsistent with a gyrojet round though, in fact I think it's an improvement on them. You have a small initial charge to get the round clear of the barrel, then the gyrojet kicks in.

This has two benefits keeps your barrel from getting immediately fouled by rocket propellant while still greatly reducing recoil, making it possible for regular humans to fire bolters and bolt pistols at all.

You're right though, we have no way of really knowing how much of the velocity is from the initial charge and how much is from the gyrojets. Having a dense core doesn't hurt the round's range, it actually helps. I'd say the bigger problem with bolter rounds is their ridiculous aspect ratio. They're far too short and fat to make effective bullets. They'd be unstable and they'd lose velocity more quickly. Gyrojets would counteract that by helping to maintain a very high angular velocity and by at least counteracting drag, if not accelerating the round. Still, I think all this puts the bolter at a relatively short effective range and doesn't penetrate the chest plate of a marine.

I always imagine bolters as the result of an M19 automatic grenade launcher and a submachine gun getting together and having a very deadly baby.


Edit - Lynata, thanks, and great minds think alike

Edit 2 - I'm an aerospace engineer and I spend a lot of time sitting at work thinking of how cool it would be to actually BUILD power armor. The crazy thing is, we're almost there. All the basic technology exists except the "power part". Figure out a power source dense enough and one could definitely build a kickass powered, controlled, bulletproof exoskeleton

When reading 40k fluff, and especially their "tech-descriptions" there are 2 things you must do:

1) remember the line from MST3K:the move; "Increase the Flash Gordon noise and put more science stuff around!"

2)the terms themselves are plain-language, not generally their real-science meanings. Ex: Mass-reactive warheads on Bolt weapons does not mean they explode with the force of a nuke, it means they react to mass(explode after contact). So the pauldron's "Reactive Armor" is probably more in reference to them reacting to the marines movement(they are described as lifting up to allow full range of movement in the arms).

As for the bolter rounds, they are more like miniaturized Rocket assisted artillery shells then gyro-jets; launched from an initial charge, rocket propelled after leaving the barrel, delivers a payload.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:Edit 2 - I'm an aerospace engineer and I spend a lot of time sitting at work thinking of how cool it would be to actually BUILD power armor. The crazy thing is, we're almost there. All the basic technology exists except the "power part". Figure out a power source dense enough and one could definitely build a kickass powered, controlled, bulletproof exoskeleton

I know! Hey, how about you just take this and slap some armour around it?

Also, that sounds like a really cool job.

Kommissar: Very good point regarding the language. Something to keep in mind when reading those descriptions, though I still can't get enough of them, regardless of how unscientific they are.

I think a large amount of the protection PA provides is because it is angled.

the rounded shape of the PA allows it to deflect rather then absorb damage.

this can explain why Bolter rounds can penetrate PA. It can penetrate when it his it dead on or a weak area, like joints, but will deflect when it hits at an angle. Marines will capitalize on this and hug cover and keep their body where there are no sharp angles between them and incoming fire.

as for Pauldrons being described as "reactive", I think its refering to the fact the pauldrons are motorized and will move to provide optimum protection to the marine's head. it doesn't mean Reactive in the same way as its used in current times as for an explosive charge which destroys the incoming fire.



Bolt rounds do indeed have cases. they have an initial charge(contained in the case) which fires the round to lethal speeds. then they have a secondary rocket stage which ignites after leaving the barrel. so Bolters have greater penetration power at longer ranges, but this is not represented on the table top.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote: I'd say the bigger problem with bolter rounds is their ridiculous aspect ratio. They're far too short and fat to make effective bullets. They'd be unstable and they'd lose velocity more quickly. Gyrojets would counteract that by helping to maintain a very high angular velocity and by at least counteracting drag, if not accelerating the round. Still, I think all this puts the bolter at a relatively short effective range and doesn't penetrate the chest plate of a marine.

Maybe that's why they only have a range of 24"?

On the note of reactive:

Reactive simply means "reacts to incoming fire." In modern times, this means triggering a high-explosive which disrupts or destroys incoming ordnance.

In sci-fi, this can mean many things:

1) Electrically powered energy dispersants (think capacitor to absorb energy)

2) A material which gets stiffer on impact through some means

3) An armored plate which moves out slightly on impact

4) a electrically charged hardener, similar to 2 but more likely.

Personally, I think 2 or 4 are more likely.

DarknessEternal wrote:If the HH novels are to be believed, bolter rounds go through power armor like it's clothing.

Well, in the Chaos Marines codex a Traitor Marines takes three bolter rounds to the chest and just gets angry, they deflecting off harmlessly, and then a loyalist Marine has a bolter round hit him in the face without any real damage either.

So in the fluff, would say it varies.

Great everybody, especially CalgarsPimpHand and Lynata. You two present the most answers regarding my questions.

As for shielding:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynata wrote:What kind of shielding? Radiation, atmospheric, or rather stuff like refractor fields etc?

The former is a given, the latter should be possible but certainly isn't the norm. They can be combined, though (Marines and Sisters can wear a Rosarius in power armour), so I suppose a particularly wealthy Rogue Trader or Inquisitor could have a suit custom-made for him that would include such equipment.

I was thinking about universal shield ( the one that can be used against solid matter, temperature, radiation and pressure ).

And if this is true, that some people can get custom made ones, why don't every Astartes have there shields as standard equipment?
Why don't Grey Knights have them ( they after all have the best tech Imperium can offer )?

Brother Coa wrote:And if this is true, that some people can get custom made ones, why don't every Astartes have there shields as standard equipment?

A question of usefulness vs price, I suppose. Shield conversion technology of such a miniscule size is the kind of stuff that is really, really rare - so much so that every single device is a unique work of art ... similar to, for example, inferno pistols. And even Marine Chapters have budgets for this kind of high technology, though they would not always be measured in money alone.

Furthermore, the Rosarius is actually a device crafted by the Adeptus Ministorum and then often given to Marine Chaplains as a diplomatical, symbolic link between a Chapter and the Ecclesiarchy (as weak as it is). If these things could be mass-produced, they'd likely show up in the rank-and-file of the SoB first and not just their Palatines and Canonesses, before the Church would start handing them out to Battle Brother Josmitharius' Tactical Squad.

There are also weaker versions called refractor fields who are sometimes worn by officers of the Imperial Guard. If I'd have to theorize why those are not a common sight in the ranks of the Astartes I could only explain it with the notion that these things don't actually make such a great difference when you wear power armour and would short out soon in the kind of thick fighting the Marines deploy in. In short, they're only useful to a certain degree; if the incoming damage is too high the device will simply break.

This would be even more true for the Grey Knights. I don't think a refractor field would pose any hindrance against a daemon. Their armour and superhuman endurance is, in the end, far more reliable.

Power armor can withstand anything ... except for kittens ... kittens and ponies.

djphranq wrote:Power armor can withstand anything ... except for kittens ... kittens and ponies.

true, even the Chaos and Orks god can't defeat this:

DarknessEternal wrote:If the HH novels are to be believed, bolter rounds go through power armor like it's clothing.

This stems from the unfortunate fact that Dan Abnett has somehow been unable to comprehend that the Boltgun is a weapon designed to pierce and destroy lightly armored targets, not power armor reputed to withstand everything up to high-caliber autocannons and battle cannon shells.

I've liked Mr.Dembski-Bowden's take on the issue of the durability of power armor so far. Lasguns and autoguns are useless, but a steady stream of bolter fire can wear it down.

Grey Knight's Aegis Armor is "better" in numerous ways than even Errant Armor thanks to the GK's access to higher quality materials and manufacturing, but the difference isn't noticeable enough to warrant a difference on the tabletop.

Additional shielding is certainly possible. Storm and Combat shields simply can't be miniaturized while maintaining the same level of protection, and are worn on the forearms. Refractor Field projectors and Rosaries are small enough to be worn as trinkets and provide good protection. I'd imagine here's nothing stopping one from building a Refractor Field projector into a suit of power armor, but fiddling with a Rosarius might be considered disrespectful.

Stock power armor was designed with void-combat in mind, and would certainly have the necessary equipment to function for long periods of time when needed. Ceramite has been mentioned to be very good at absorbing heat, so it stands to reason that power armor could withstand a glancing hit from a plasma weapon with little issue.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:From what I gather (warning: initiating deviation away from fluff and into my own conjecture) power armor is primarily comprised of two types of armor:

ceramic composite plates, probably very similar to modern tank armor but way more advanced

kevlar style flexible joints

I imagine the larger plates would provide very good protection against most kinetic and some energy weapons. As a marine still gets an armor save against high caliber, high velocity weapons such as autocannons, the large plates are probably nearly on par with modern main battle tank armor.

The pauldrons are sometimes described as reactive armor in fluff descriptions, but I think this is an example of authors/illustrators using random terminology to science-up their work. Otherwise marines would be replacing their pauldrons whenever the reactive armor exploded outward to defeat an energy weapon, which doesn't actually appear to be the case. So the pauldrons are probably also just very thick and highly advanced ceramic composite armor, with different layers to defeat different weapon types.

But wait, if a marine's armor plate is near-infallible, why do they still fail their saves 1/3 of the time? First off tabletop 40k is pretty simplified - play Inquisitor to see how tough power armor really is. Second, most failed armor saves are probably hits against the flexible joints or thinner pieces of plate. Small arms like autoguns and lasguns, or hand to hand combat attacks are probably unable to penetrate nearly any of the armor plate, but instead go through the kevlar-esque joints, the eyepieces, the thin armor of the gauntlets or forearms, or maybe the helmet as it can't be very thick.

As for boltguns, descriptions of the effectiveness of bolter rounds against power armor is all over the place in the fluff. Sometimes the rounds clatter off harmlessly, and sometimes they go clean through someone's chest plate.

To start, bolter rounds are described as high caliber, armor piercing, and high explosive. However, they would have relatively low velocity, especially right after leaving the barrel as it takes time for the rocket motor to accelerate the round. As a result, armor penetration wouldn't be that great at close range, and would probably be something like a .50 cal at max effective range - not enough to go through a few inches of what is essentially tank armor. The amount of high explosive you can fit into a 0.75 caliber round is also not impressive. It isn't designed as a shaped charge (except maybe some special-issue type rounds), so it isn't helping armor penetration. The HE is really there to explode inside a soft target, where a very small amount of explosives can cause massive trauma.

What I'm getting at is, fluff descriptions where bolter rounds go cleanly through the chest plate of a marine make no sense - the round simply couldn't and shouldn't have the necessary penetrating power. Other fluff has sustained bolter fire taking chunks out of the armor and potentially cracking the plates, which seems reasonable. So sustained bolter higher caliber weapons fire could chip away at and/or crack even the larger plates, which would eventually weaken the plate until a round could go through. I'd say you could take a limited number of rounds to the same spot, probably a near-infinite number for an autogun to the chest, much fewer for a bolter or heavy bolter, and maybe only a few for something like an autocannon. This doesn't even get into the potential for an incredibly hard ceramic plate to shatter some solid projectiles, or the effect that the curved shape of the armor plate and the incidence angle of the round would have on penetration, but it should give an idea of the capabilities of power armor plate versus kinetic penetrators.

Krak missile rounds, melta and plasma weapons - all these are energy type weapons, and behave quite differently. For a shaped charge round like a krak missile, the marine's plate armor won't help much. A big tank like a Leman Russ probably has some advanced type of spaced armor that can defeat shaped charges easily, but a suit of power armor is cumbersome enough without a second spaced armor layer. Marines or Battle Sisters would be relying on the ability of their composite plate armor to absorb or dissipate the energy from any shaped charge or other energy weapon, which would be limited. You might dissipate the energy from a lasgun or multilaser easily enough, but weapons specifically intended to melt straight through tank armor are going to slag you.

Withstanding vacuum shouldn't be a problem. Modern-day space suits don't freeze and crack in vacuum, and Astartes power armor wouldn't either. It's specifically designed for fighting in space. It's sealed, climate controlled, can probably scrub CO2 to provide breathable air for many hours, has mag-lock boots to allow walking on metal surfaces in zero-g. I would even imagine any suit of armor designed for space combat would be "self-sealing" in the manner of self-sealing fuel tanks in fighter aircraft and the like, so there's probably a secondary layer under the armor that can expand to seal off small punctures. While we're at it, I would include cuffs at different points along the limbs that could constrict if a loss of pressure was detected in that limb (potentially costing the marine his arm by cutting off blood flow, but saving his life by maintaining suit pressure).

Whew, sorry to digress, I'm quite bored at work.

Best post in the thread so far.

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:But wait, if a marine's armor plate is near-infallible, why do they still fail their saves 1/3 of the time?

One should also remember that a model losing it's last wound isn't necessarily killed. He might have been critically injured or killed, sure. It could also be he was knocked out, got stuck under a falling wall or lost key equipment making him useless. Marines could lose their weapons in explosions much more often than they get injured, for example.